When deciding on new year’s resolutions this year, my first thought was to follow my governor’s example, my state’s example, the Denver mayor’s example, and even our new vice president, and resolve to ignore federal laws this year. I got pretty excited about this idea when I started to contemplate all the money I might save if I ignored federal tax law and simply refused to pay federal income tax this year.

I mean if the governor and mayor say they don’t have to follow federal immigration law when it comes to deporting folks who aren’t eligible for asylum or did not follow procedures for living here legally, then why do I have to follow federal laws concerning taxes?

Or if my state can simply vote to ignore federal law when it comes to the illegality of marijuana and get away with it, then surely one puny individual like me can ignore that pesky income tax law without too much consequence. 

Now our newly elected vice president is telling me we shouldn’t have to obey federal laws if we don’t particularly like them.

“The Constitution says that the Supreme Court can make rulings, but if the Supreme Court — and, look, I hope that they would not do this, but if the Supreme Court said the president of the United States can’t fire a general, that would be an illegitimate ruling,” J.D. Vance said recently.

He even invoked former President Andrew Jackson as a lodestar of defiance. Jackson once infamously ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Cherokees were an independent people entitled to the land on which they lived, instead sending federal troops to evict them. That didn’t turn out so well.

“If I was giving him (Trump) one piece of advice, fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state,” Vance said on a 2021 podcast. “Replace them with our people. And when the courts  — because you will get taken to court — and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’”

Such statements prompted conservative Supreme Court Justice John Roberts to issue a warning recently:

“Within the past few years … elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.”

But my private takeaway is different. Hey, if the president and vice president don’t have to follow Supreme Court rulings, then why the hell should I?

So I called up the intrepid lawyer that helps us fight all our First Amendment fights here at the Gazette, Steve Zansberg, and I said, “Steve, hey, if the governor, the mayor, the vice president and president don’t have to follow federal laws, then why do I have to? Can I make a sound legal argument that there is significant precedent here for me not paying my federal taxes this year?

Steve’s kind of a killjoy when it comes to interpreting the letter of the law. He bluntly told me no, I can’t ignore federal laws. Nor can the mayor, the governor or the president.

He told me there’s this little thing called “supremacy.” It’s the part of the Constitution that says that the federal government, when acting in pursuance of the Constitution, basically trumps, so to speak, state governments.

“The feds can still come in and prosecute people under the federal law,” Zansberg told me. Just because they haven’t doesn’t mean they can’t. “The only reason they are not doing it is because more and more attorney generals have said we’re not going to enforce these laws” such as federal laws outlawing marijuana and immigration enforcement laws. 

“But what about the 10th amendment?!?” I cried. The 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights says that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people!

That’s different than saying state laws supersede federal law, Zansberg clarified. 

One reason there are ongoing fights over the balance of power between states and the federal government is because some of the federal government’s powers and states’ powers are “concurrent.”

Both the states and federal government have powers to tax, make laws, enforce laws, take land for public use, establish courts, borrow money, charter banks.

And because of that overlap, there have been court cases in which states have argued that the federal government cannot commandeer states to enforce laws they disagree with.

A Denver district court just recently dismissed a lawsuit that Douglas County filed against the state of Colorado over its “sanctuary” statutes that restrict local law enforcement officials from working with federal authorities on illegal immigration. The court agreed with Douglas County’s argument about supremacy, that the state must follow the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal law. But the district court judges argued they were not bound by decisions of lower federal courts, which are what Douglas County cited as precedence for their argument.

Douglas County Attorney Jeff Garcia said he was not surprised the suit lost in state court, but thinks their supremacy argument will hold up in federal court. “Our best chance is with the federal court,” he told our reporter.

Zansberg isn’t buying the argument that states can somehow get around the “supremacy” rule when it comes to immigration. In addition to “concurrent powers,” the federal government and state governments each also have “exclusive powers” which only they can wield, and one of the powers that is exclusive to the federal government is “establishing rules of naturalization.”

“All immigration laws are federal,” Zansberg reminded me. “There may be disagreement about how they are implemented. Like California, and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston saying we’re not going to enforce these laws. But there is no question this is federal law,” Zansberg said. “There is no state immigration law.”

“If the new administration decides to deport (those here illegally) and their families, under law they have the authority to do that,” said Zansberg.

“So I don’t know what lies ahead,” he added. “I think there are going to be some serious confrontations with state and local officials. I pray and hope there aren’t.”

He also assured me that I would be in for some “serious confrontation” with the IRS if I ignored federal tax law, too.

So now I’ve decided to radically adjust my New Year’s Resolution. This isn’t going to be as fun probably, but I’ve decided to honor, treasure and possibly even celebrate the rule of law in the new year. I’ve decided that I’m not going to do what politicians tell me to do this year, I’m going to do exactly what the Constitution tells me to do. I’ve decided to trust more in Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison than Johnston, Polis and Vance. I know, I know, radical right?

So if you see me with a tricorne hat marching around Colorado with a 1700s musket this year, preaching the wonders of the rule of law, indulge me a bit. I’m following the example of writer A.J. Jacobs, who just wrote a book called “The Year of Living Constitutionally.” In the wake of several controversial rulings by the Supreme Court and the on-going debate about how the Constitution should be interpreted, Jacobs set out to understand what it means to live as closely as possible to the original meaning of the Constitution.

He asserted his right to free speech by writing his opinions on parchment with a quill and handing them out to strangers in Times Square. He consented to quartering a soldier, as is his Third Amendment right. He turned his home into a traditional 1790s household by lighting candles instead of using electricity, boiling mutton, and he even delivered a handwritten petition to Congress.

I think Jacobs is onto something. Instead of flouting all our founders’ hard work, pretending that we somehow know better just because we’re “modern,” maybe it’s high time we reinvigorate and celebrate their 249-year-old great good sense, acknowledging that something that has lasted this long might — just might — have even a bit more staying power. Maybe we give the Constitution a second chance and simply follow the supreme law of the land like our founders intended, instead of ignoring it when its inconvenient.

Meantime, anyone know where I can get a good deal on a fife and drum?